Tucker loses arbitration hearing?

Arbitration salaries are based on precedent of past arbitration salaries and service time. It's his first year of arbitration, and the salary will escalate each year.

Long story short both sides put in a number, and whoever is closest to the "precedent" as decided by the arbiter will win, his team put in a number that was too high.

Arbitration earnings effect future arbitration cases as well (by setting precedent), it's why teams fight so hard to keep the numbers as low as they can despite seeming insignificant in the grand scheme.

 

Arbitration salaries are not based on free agent market prices. First year of arbitration is usually about 20% or so of free agent rate.

 

There is a reason teams like to have players under team control in pre arbitration and subsequently arbitration years and it's not so that they can pay them fair market price for their performances.

 

It is a weird system. Springer got $3.9M his first year, but Mookie Betts got $10.5M. Betts did have an extra season before arbitration though, so that adds to the difference. Even with Tucker being a traditional arbitration, I'd guess playing fewer games due to COVID season did help. Makes his numbers more comparable to Super-2 cases of the past.

 

Apples and Oranges. His salary is set by what players of similar situation (First year eligible - not super 2) have received. It is not a comparison of all players and arbitration has never been that. Considering the numbers for Bo Bichette were identical after submitting their figure which adjusts for everything and he signed a 3 year deal for $33.6M, we have a great comp for value to avoid any further arbitration hearings in Arb2 and Arb3. $28.6M for 2 years.

Now add FA years @ $30-$35M per year and that's the ballpark value excluding owner desperation. A popular length with the Astros Owner has been 6 years, so an extension of $150M - $170M for 6 ADDITIONAL years should be in the ball park.
2023 $5M
2024 - 2029 6 year extension ~ $160M. ( remaining 2 arb years and 4 Years of FA)

 

As much moaning as there is about players being underpaid Millionaires, it was actually an improvement over Lifetime control which was the norm before Marvin Miller. He was a Saint or Satan, depending on which side you were on.

Back in those days, players could be hoarded and never see the big leagues if they were stuck behind a star and they could not go elsewhere. Then they created Free Agency and Arbitration to compromise salaries between team control and FA in year 6. As many things are, it was a compromise between owner wanting 6 years of CC and players Union wanting 3 years of CC. This is why FA values are not a direct part of the comparables equation.

 

You are very right about this.

The problem is that owners are business men thinking about money. They are not athletes thinking about winning.

Professional sports are businesses not "sports"

If owners' #1 priority was winning then they would invest most of revenue back into the team.

Instead they collude to keep payroll at certain levels and make player decisions based on how much the player makes instead of how much he helps the team.

 

Just to reiterate a point. Fair Market value is different for Pre arb, arb and FAs. Many wrongly assume FA Market value IS Fair Market Value.

 

Tucker isn't like that.

Tucker since day one has taken the position that business is business.

Some players take the arbitration process very personal - I would be shocked if Tucker is one of those players.

 

There is also an element of addressing competition between teams in different sized markets. You don't want the league to become an exhibition with 29 teams playing the role of the Washington Generals to The Harlem Globetrotters.

 

As businessmen, they do realize that winning enhanced revenue. So even if their motivation is JUST MONEY, they want to win as well.

 

I understand that and am not trying to suggest that the players deserve any more than what the process currently is.
I was just explaining why teams like to have the controllable players. You get players for much less money than what someone else would be willing to pay them if that option existed in the agreement.

 

Of course most of them are somewhere between Pittsburgh (don't ever spend anything and who cares if they even keep score) and New York Mets (I have more money than I can possibly use anyway and this is my new toy. Let's buy a World Series)

But I wish it was a non profit league and Winning trumped all else when it came to personnel decisions.

 

Agreed. This is more of a technical point where much confusion reigns. "Fair" market value only exist among the category much like Fair Market value in one city cannot be compared to Fair Market Value in a different city or even in different neighborhoods in the same city.

 

I don't think any sport should ever be a non profit charity. I don't even like professional fundraisers for charities who skim off huge chunks for their fundraising. I can't conceive that any professional sport would be less corrupt.

 

FWIW, athletes are also thinking about money. Winning will almost always come in a secondary goal once they've secured the money - and rightfully so, since its their jobs and livelihoods. The MLBPA's job is to maximize player income, rather than making the sport better or more fair.

 

Scott Boras is Tuckers Agent, Another Boras guys are Altuve and Bregman.

Extend Framber Valdez at least.

 

As a fan, I'd say the owners do more in the CBA to make the game fair than the players as parity helps the small market owners make more money.